(02-17-2014 12:12 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I figure she's probably going to be elected. My question is, and have yet to get a satisfactory answer is, then what?

WANTING someone to be president and them being one worth a damn are two different things.

Not a single member of congress is worth a damn.

This. Specifically the house.

(02-17-2014 06:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:12 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I figure she's probably going to be elected. My question is, and have yet to get a satisfactory answer is, then what?

WANTING someone to be president and them being one worth a damn are two different things.

Not a single member of congress is worth a damn.

This. Specifically the house.

Your point?

So, let's elect one more not worth a damn person?

Helluva plan you've got there.

(02-16-2014 10:34 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:09 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I figure she's probably going to be elected. My question is, and have yet to get a satisfactory answer is, then what?

WANTING someone to be president and them being one worth a damn are two different things.

Yep. And running for president (which Obama ROCKS at) is different than being president (which he sucks a$$ at).

Yeah, can't figure out how he is so damn good at running for president, but not so much at being president.

Well, I think there was a time when, to be considered seriously for the job, it was more weighted with prior accomplishments than speaking ability and looks. Pretty much today, we are in the age of celebrity which means one can actually be a dumba$$ and do stupid stuff - but if you're famous lots of people will still view you in a favorable light. It's the age of reality TV. Accomplishments don't mean much anymore, it's more important to be famous. Al Franken comes to mind - I mean he's now a freaking Senator and he had NO EXPERIENCE in politics prior to being elected to the Senate. Not Mayor, councilman, nothing! Celebrity over experience.

(02-17-2014 09:00 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:34 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:09 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I figure she's probably going to be elected. My question is, and have yet to get a satisfactory answer is, then what?

WANTING someone to be president and them being one worth a damn are two different things.

Yep. And running for president (which Obama ROCKS at) is different than being president (which he sucks a$$ at).

Yeah, can't figure out how he is so damn good at running for president, but not so much at being president.

Well, I think there was a time when, to be considered seriously for the job, it was more weighted with prior accomplishments than speaking ability and looks. Pretty much today, we are in the age of celebrity which means one can actually be a dumba$$ and do stupid stuff - but if you're famous lots of people will still view you in a favorable light. It's the age of reality TV. Accomplishments don't mean much anymore, it's more important to be famous. Al Franken comes to mind - I mean he's now a freaking Senator and he had NO EXPERIENCE in politics prior to being elected to the Senate. Not Mayor, councilman, nothing! Celebrity over experience.

I think it's simpler than that. candidate obama can be told what to do by his campaign managers. president obama cannot. think about it.

(02-17-2014 07:40 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 06:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:12 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I figure she's probably going to be elected. My question is, and have yet to get a satisfactory answer is, then what?

WANTING someone to be president and them being one worth a damn are two different things.

Not a single member of congress is worth a damn.

This. Specifically the house.

Your point?

So, let's elect one more not worth a damn person?

Helluva plan you've got there.

Honestly, I would send them all home.

(02-17-2014 09:03 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:00 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:34 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:09 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I figure she's probably going to be elected. My question is, and have yet to get a satisfactory answer is, then what?

WANTING someone to be president and them being one worth a damn are two different things.

Yep. And running for president (which Obama ROCKS at) is different than being president (which he sucks a$$ at).

Yeah, can't figure out how he is so damn good at running for president, but not so much at being president.

Well, I think there was a time when, to be considered seriously for the job, it was more weighted with prior accomplishments than speaking ability and looks. Pretty much today, we are in the age of celebrity which means one can actually be a dumba$$ and do stupid stuff - but if you're famous lots of people will still view you in a favorable light. It's the age of reality TV. Accomplishments don't mean much anymore, it's more important to be famous. Al Franken comes to mind - I mean he's now a freaking Senator and he had NO EXPERIENCE in politics prior to being elected to the Senate. Not Mayor, councilman, nothing! Celebrity over experience.

I think it's simpler than that. candidate obama can be told what to do by his campaign managers. president obama cannot. think about it.

Or it could be as simple as Obama is a great campaigner, but has no experience running anything and doesn't know how. It's an absolute stone cold lock that he's not a leader - hell, he all but publicly stomps his feet whining when he doesn't get his way (not what leaders do).

(02-17-2014 09:29 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:03 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:00 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:34 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:09 PM)EagleX Wrote:  Yep. And running for president (which Obama ROCKS at) is different than being president (which he sucks a$$ at).

Yeah, can't figure out how he is so damn good at running for president, but not so much at being president.

Well, I think there was a time when, to be considered seriously for the job, it was more weighted with prior accomplishments than speaking ability and looks. Pretty much today, we are in the age of celebrity which means one can actually be a dumba$$ and do stupid stuff - but if you're famous lots of people will still view you in a favorable light. It's the age of reality TV. Accomplishments don't mean much anymore, it's more important to be famous. Al Franken comes to mind - I mean he's now a freaking Senator and he had NO EXPERIENCE in politics prior to being elected to the Senate. Not Mayor, councilman, nothing! Celebrity over experience.

I think it's simpler than that. candidate obama can be told what to do by his campaign managers. president obama cannot. think about it.

Or it could be as simple as Obama is a great campaigner, but has no experience running anything and doesn't know how. It's an absolute stone cold lock that he's not a leader - hell, he all but publicly stomps his feet whining when he doesn't get his way (not what leaders do).

I could have sworn that's what I said.

(02-17-2014 09:41 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:29 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:03 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:00 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:34 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Yeah, can't figure out how he is so damn good at running for president, but not so much at being president.

Well, I think there was a time when, to be considered seriously for the job, it was more weighted with prior accomplishments than speaking ability and looks. Pretty much today, we are in the age of celebrity which means one can actually be a dumba$$ and do stupid stuff - but if you're famous lots of people will still view you in a favorable light. It's the age of reality TV. Accomplishments don't mean much anymore, it's more important to be famous. Al Franken comes to mind - I mean he's now a freaking Senator and he had NO EXPERIENCE in politics prior to being elected to the Senate. Not Mayor, councilman, nothing! Celebrity over experience.

I think it's simpler than that. candidate obama can be told what to do by his campaign managers. president obama cannot. think about it.

Or it could be as simple as Obama is a great campaigner, but has no experience running anything and doesn't know how. It's an absolute stone cold lock that he's not a leader - hell, he all but publicly stomps his feet whining when he doesn't get his way (not what leaders do).

I could have sworn that's what I said.

Yeah, but he said it with more elegance.

(02-17-2014 09:25 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 07:40 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 06:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:12 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I figure she's probably going to be elected. My question is, and have yet to get a satisfactory answer is, then what?

WANTING someone to be president and them being one worth a damn are two different things.

Not a single member of congress is worth a damn.

This. Specifically the house.

Your point?

So, let's elect one more not worth a damn person?

Helluva plan you've got there.

Honestly, I would send them all home.

So, you don't want Hillary to be president. Gotcha.

(02-17-2014 06:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:12 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I figure she's probably going to be elected. My question is, and have yet to get a satisfactory answer is, then what?

WANTING someone to be president and them being one worth a damn are two different things.

Not a single member of congress is worth a damn.

This. Specifically the house.

Nah, you just don't like it because your chosen party isn't in power on that side of Congress. Notice you didn't have any problems with the Senate and Reid.

(02-16-2014 10:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:10 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 08:34 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 08:00 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 07:54 PM)Crebman Wrote:  No. More people in Kentucky are on medicaid than before, not more people with health coverage.

Seems to work fine for me. Was able to get an eye exam with my new health coverage.

so you are a taker not a maker. that explains a lot.

I'm glad you're able to make that assumption based on the fact I have health insurance now, that I did not have in 2013, though I didn't specify which kind.

So you're an idiot. That explains a lot.

How did you get a vision exam covered on your new health plan if it's not Medicaid ? Are you under 22 years old? Or do you have some medical problem with your eyes?

Once again, how did you get a routine vision exam covered with your new Obamacare plan, where you evidently live, in Kentucky?

(02-17-2014 09:53 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:25 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 07:40 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 06:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:12 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Not a single member of congress is worth a damn.

This. Specifically the house.

Your point?

So, let's elect one more not worth a damn person?

Helluva plan you've got there.

Honestly, I would send them all home.

So, you don't want Hillary to be president. Gotcha.

She is home. I'd bring her back.

(02-17-2014 10:47 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 06:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:12 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I figure she's probably going to be elected. My question is, and have yet to get a satisfactory answer is, then what?

WANTING someone to be president and them being one worth a damn are two different things.

Not a single member of congress is worth a damn.

This. Specifically the house.

Nah, you just don't like it because your chosen party isn't in power on that side of Congress. Notice you didn't have any problems with the Senate and Reid.

I think most members of the house of representative are idiots. I have slightly(not much) more regard for the Senate and it has nothing to do with Harry Reid.

(02-17-2014 12:19 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:10 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 08:34 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 08:00 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Seems to work fine for me. Was able to get an eye exam with my new health coverage.

so you are a taker not a maker. that explains a lot.

I'm glad you're able to make that assumption based on the fact I have health insurance now, that I did not have in 2013, though I didn't specify which kind.

So you're an idiot. That explains a lot.

How did you get a vision exam covered on your new health plan if it's not Medicaid ? Are you under 22 years old? Or do you have some medical problem with your eyes?

Once again, how did you get a routine vision exam covered with your new Obamacare plan, where you evidently live, in Kentucky?

This is gonna be good.

I know something he doesn't. Haha

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(02-17-2014 12:34 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:53 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:25 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 07:40 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 06:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  This. Specifically the house.

Your point?

So, let's elect one more not worth a damn person?

Helluva plan you've got there.

Honestly, I would send them all home.

So, you don't want Hillary to be president. Gotcha.

She is home. I'd bring her back.

Why?

She's a train wreck.

(02-17-2014 12:19 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:10 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 08:34 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  so you are a taker not a maker. that explains a lot.

I'm glad you're able to make that assumption based on the fact I have health insurance now, that I did not have in 2013, though I didn't specify which kind.

So you're an idiot. That explains a lot.

How did you get a vision exam covered on your new health plan if it's not Medicaid ? Are you under 22 years old? Or do you have some medical problem with your eyes?

Once again, how did you get a routine vision exam covered with your new Obamacare plan, where you evidently live, in Kentucky?

Bump for the Math Enis. Could you answer my question?

(02-18-2014 08:25 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:19 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:10 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 08:34 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  so you are a taker not a maker. that explains a lot.

I'm glad you're able to make that assumption based on the fact I have health insurance now, that I did not have in 2013, though I didn't specify which kind.

So you're an idiot. That explains a lot.

How did you get a vision exam covered on your new health plan if it's not Medicaid ? Are you under 22 years old? Or do you have some medical problem with your eyes?

Once again, how did you get a routine vision exam covered with your new Obamacare plan, where you evidently live, in Kentucky?

Bump for the Math Enis. Could you answer my question?

Bet money he won't answer. He won't let himself get pinned down with the truth. It's how Libs operate.

(02-18-2014 08:37 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 08:25 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:19 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 09:10 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  I'm glad you're able to make that assumption based on the fact I have health insurance now, that I did not have in 2013, though I didn't specify which kind.

So you're an idiot. That explains a lot.

How did you get a vision exam covered on your new health plan if it's not Medicaid ? Are you under 22 years old? Or do you have some medical problem with your eyes?

Once again, how did you get a routine vision exam covered with your new Obamacare plan, where you evidently live, in Kentucky?

Bump for the Math Enis. Could you answer my question?

Bet money he won't answer. He won't let himself get pinned down with the truth. It's how Libs operate.

It isn't that complicated. If he didn't have health insurance in 2013 because he couldn't afford it and he was able to get it in 2014 because he could afford it with the subsidy then he has coverage. Some plans include routine eye exams. It isn't a requirement under the ACA except for those under 18 but that doesn't mean it isn't on some of the plans. I think my plan (not from the exchange) includes one, but I have never used it since I have a separate vision plan.

(02-18-2014 02:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 08:37 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 08:25 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:19 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 10:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  How did you get a vision exam covered on your new health plan if it's not Medicaid ? Are you under 22 years old? Or do you have some medical problem with your eyes?

Once again, how did you get a routine vision exam covered with your new Obamacare plan, where you evidently live, in Kentucky?

Bump for the Math Enis. Could you answer my question?

Bet money he won't answer. He won't let himself get pinned down with the truth. It's how Libs operate.

It isn't that complicated. If he didn't have health insurance in 2013 because he couldn't afford it and he was able to get it in 2014 because he could afford it with the subsidy then he has coverage. Some plans include routine eye exams. It isn't a requirement under the ACA except for those under 18 but that doesn't mean it isn't on some of the plans. I think my plan (not from the exchange) includes one, but I have never used it since I have a separate vision plan.

No it isn't complicated at all. Because, since he lives in the South Central-Western part of Kentucky, its not hard to figure out which individual health plans are available there to choose from that would pay for routine eye exams for an adult.

And the answer is none.

There are exactly two insurer choices for someone who lives around the Bowling Green area of Kentucky that are available as ACA compliant individual health plans. Assuming he didn't have coverage before as he states, this assumes his employer didn't provide it (if he's employed). So his circumstances indicate that we're talking about him buying an individual plan, if he bought something that was available now that hadn't been before. One insurance choice for this is Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. The other is the Kentucky Health Cooperative.

Neither would cover routine eye exams for someone who is over age 21.

(02-18-2014 07:53 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 02:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 08:37 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 08:25 AM)G-Man Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 12:19 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Once again, how did you get a routine vision exam covered with your new Obamacare plan, where you evidently live, in Kentucky?

Bump for the Math Enis. Could you answer my question?

Bet money he won't answer. He won't let himself get pinned down with the truth. It's how Libs operate.

It isn't that complicated. If he didn't have health insurance in 2013 because he couldn't afford it and he was able to get it in 2014 because he could afford it with the subsidy then he has coverage. Some plans include routine eye exams. It isn't a requirement under the ACA except for those under 18 but that doesn't mean it isn't on some of the plans. I think my plan (not from the exchange) includes one, but I have never used it since I have a separate vision plan.

No it isn't complicated at all. Because, since he lives in the South Central-Western part of Kentucky, its not hard to figure out which individual health plans are available there to choose from that would pay for routine eye exams for an adult.

And the answer is none.

There are exactly two insurer choices for someone who lives around the Bowling Green area of Kentucky that are available as ACA compliant individual health plans. Assuming he didn't have coverage before as he states, this assumes his employer didn't provide it (if he's employed). So his circumstances indicate that we're talking about him buying an individual plan, if he bought something that was available now that hadn't been before. One insurance choice for this is Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. The other is the Kentucky Health Cooperative.

Neither would cover routine eye exams for someone who is over age 21.

I guess he will have to tell us then.